SCHV vs SPYV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SCHV and SPYV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SCHV is Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF, while SPYV is State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF. SCHV is broader by holdings count, with 559 positions versus 440 for SPYV. SPYV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPYV ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 58.
| Metric | SCHV | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 559 | 440 |
| Top-10 concentration | 20.9% | 24.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.85% | 1.68% |
| Average volume | 3,177,938 | 2,282,631 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +17.6% | +13% |
| YTD return | +14.6% | +11% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +9.5% | +11% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 10.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.3% | -6.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -19.8% | -17.9% |
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.14 | 0.94 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.71 | 1.36 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 58/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 48/100 | 62/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 78/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF vs State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF
SPYV leads
SPYV leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support SPYV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPYV over SCHV, 60 versus 58 as of Nov 7, 2026. SPYV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while SCHV holds the stronger value profile. SPYV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPYV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. SPYV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF and State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SCHV vs SPYV: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | SCHV | SPYV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.04% | 0.04% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 559 | 440 | SCHV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 20.9% | 24.1% | SCHV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.85% | 1.68% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -19.8% | -17.9% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.8% | 10.1% | SPYV |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare SCHV and SPYV against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum48 vs 62SPYV +14
- Value52 vs 45SCHV +7
- Quality64 vs 65Even
- Risk Resilience77 vs 78Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor SPYV. SPYV’s edge is concentrated in momentum; SCHV keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Value +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
SPYV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SCHV and SPYV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPYV (State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
SCHV (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | SCHV | SPYV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 559 | 440 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,177,938 | 2,282,631 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 10.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.3% | -6.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.14 | 0.94 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.57 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
SCHV and SPYV share 66.3% of their weighted exposure across 350 common holdings.
205 holdings are unique to SCHV, and 88 holdings are unique to SPYV. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
SPYV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 24.06% of the fund, against 20.86% for SCHV (440 holdings vs 559). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | SCHV | SPYV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 2.18% | 2.3% | 2.18% |
| INTCINTEL CORP | 1.58% | 1.67% | 1.58% |
| WMTWALMART INC | 1.48% | 1.56% | 1.48% |
| BACBANK OF AMERICA CORP | 1.3% | 1.37% | 1.3% |
| CVXCHEVRON CORP | 1.27% | 1.34% | 1.27% |
| MRKMERCK + CO. INC. | 1.14% | 1.2% | 1.14% |
| PGPROCTER + GAMBLE CO/THE | 1.06% | 1.12% | 1.06% |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE | 3.02% | 1.02% | 1.02% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SCHV adds that SPYV doesn’t
| Holding | SCHV | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 3.51% | Not held |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE | 3.02% | 1.02% |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B | 2.96% | Not held |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 2.04% | 0.88% |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 1.35% | 0.67% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 1.19% | Not held |
What SPYV adds that SCHV doesn’t
| Holding | SPYV | SCHV |
|---|---|---|
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 8.06% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.9% | Not held |
| COSTCOSTCO WHOLESALE CORP | 1.35% | Not held |
| TSLATESLA INC | 1.31% | Not held |
| UNHUNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC | 1.19% | Not held |
| VVISA INC CLASS A SHARES | 0.92% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
SCHV vs SPYV: five-year payout growth
SPYV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 4.13% a year against SCHV's -0.06%.
| Dividend metric | SCHV | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | -0.06% | 4.13% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.601 | $0.819 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.600 | $1.003 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 3 |
| Peer rank | #129 of 138 | #106 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPYV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 58 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHV | Value 52 vs 45 |
| Technicals | SPYV | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs 0.2%; vs 200-day 2.2% vs 3.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 77 vs 78 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SCHV and SPYV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on SPYV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6SPYV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPYV +2
- 58 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- SPYV +1
- 65 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- SPYV +4
- 60 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- SPYV +3
- 58 vs 61
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Nov 5 when SPYV moved ahead of SCHV.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SPYV
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, MACD Bearish Crossover.
SPYV leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.32%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.39%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1SCHV closes the Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPYV's edge.
- 2SCHV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SPYV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
SPYV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SCHV | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | 1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.6% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | 4.9% |
| Year to date | 14.6% | 11% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.6% | 13% |
Technicals
SPYV has the stronger structure| Metric | SCHV | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.2 | 50.6 |
| ADX (14) | 21.7 | 29.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | 0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.2% | 3.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.5% | 14.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SCHV | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.69 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.14 | 0.94 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.71 | 1.36 |
| Max drawdown | -7.3% | -6.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4% | -3.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.8% | 10.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do SCHV and SPYV overlap?
SCHV and SPYV share 66.3% of their weighted exposure across 350 common holdings. 205 holdings are unique to SCHV, and 88 holdings are unique to SPYV. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, SCHV or SPYV?
SCHV holds more positions: 559 versus 440 for SPYV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.04% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.85% for SCHV and 1.68% for SPYV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SCHV has been more volatile over the past year, at 11.8% annualized against 10.1% for SPYV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -19.8% for SCHV and -17.9% for SPYV.
Compare SCHV and SPYV with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.